I'm not sure that even if there were gain/loss involved, that would be enough to say there was a "Satanic solution". Satanism doesn't justify doing things that are morally wrong.

I was always under the impression that Satanism did not recognize the concept of “morality” as a legitimate principle with which to be concerned with (aside from considering other people’s flaw perceptions about it, of course).

As I understand it, the emphasis in Satanic philosophy is on a logic, practicality (both short term and long-term) and rational selfish interest.

Of course, this in no way negates the possibility of acting in what would otherwise be considered a “moral” way, but the motivation is not to do it because “it is right” or because “you're supposed to”; but because it works.

I not only see the concept of morality as irrational, but potentially dangerous because of its highly subjective and emotional nature. History has shown that humans can justify anything under the guise of “doing the right thing”.

I think it’s best to just throw out any concepts of right and wrong and only concern ourselves with more practical motives.

If it can’t be justified by logic, then it's obviously flawed, anyway. Best to just go straight for the logical or selfish motivation and cut through any irrelevant moral justification.

Regardless of how many people agree on it, morality is just an opinion. As Satanists, I think we can find better reasons for anything we do besides the tired old argument of “because it’s right”.

Great,I just wrote all of this and now I see that HellofallHells has just literally stated the exact opposite!

I’m going to post it up anyway, because I think my argument has merit.

I think you're confusing two very different things. Yes morality is subjective and mostly bullshit in the way that people pontificate about it. But are you really gonna start philosophising when someone is in imminent danger and you can do something to help?

I think you're confusing two very different things. Yes morality is subjective and mostly bullshit in the way that people pontificate about it. But are you really gonna start philosophising when someone is in imminent danger and you can do something to help?

That's what I'm talking about.

Well no, but I assumed that’s what we were doing here.

What I would do would probably be more or less instinctual, but I at no time would think of my actions in terms of “morality”. I am always fully aware that everything I deliberately do is ultimately for my own purposes. I certainly wouldn't do anything just because “it’s right”. There’s always some more practical motivation, even if it’s just to look like the good guy.

I was always under the impression that Satanism did not recognize the concept of “morality” as a legitimate principle with which to be concerned with (aside from considering other people’s flaw perceptions about it, of course).

I think you'll find that first impression is not really adequate to the reality of Satanism.

Satanism criticizes received views about right and wrong. But its criticism is, in part, an ethical one: received views about right and wrong are wrong, because they promote irresponsibility or hypocrisy.

Responsibility and the rejection of hypocrisy are regarded as moral bedrock.

Sometimes upholding your responsibility or avoiding hypocrisy is dangerous, hard, ignoble, inconvenient, or unlikely to succeed, or even doomed to fail. Sometimes there's no particular pleasure or advantage in it.

But you still do them because to ignore them would be irresponsible or hypocritical.

[quote=reprobateBut you still do them because to ignore them would be irresponsible or hypocritical.

[/quote]

But I still fail to see the purpose of concepts like morality in all of this. Wouldn't it would be more accurate to say that you do these things because they are practical and not because they are moral?

If there’s no rational purpose, then why do something? Surely you're not suggesting that just the principle of the thing is sufficient motivation, alone?

I am certainly not trying to excuse irresponsible behavior under the guise of philosophy. If you think that’s what I’ve been trying to do here, then you’re missing my point.

However, I do think there are more practical reasons for being responsible. If there weren’t, then it would be pointless.

Basically, it seems to me that practicality should dictate principle and not the other way around.

My problem with terms like morality, ethics etc. is that I see them as nothing more than good guy badge terminology. And because, as has been pointed out before, they are so subjective and can lead to very responsible behavior, I think it’s a bit impractical to use them or even think about things that way.

If an action has a desirable outcome, then you’re doing it for a practical purpose and if not, what’s the point? If there’s no desirable outcome on any level, then wouldn’t it be stupid to take such action?

Isn’t the reason that Satanism advocates “responsibility for the responsible” because it works and it makes sense? What’s the point of something like morality when you have practicality and logic?

I just don’t see the point of these concepts and I feel they do more harm than good. I think that they distract from what people should be really focused on. And provide an “out” or excuse irresponsible behavior.

I'll fully admit that I'm kind of bias against this terminology and perhaps it does have some merit. I don’t see why intelligent people should need a concept like morality to keep them in line when there are obvious practical consequences for one’s actions.

For the reasons above, I get a little bit annoyed about those ideas. I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.

Carrying out your responsibility, being autonomous, and being careful not to act hypocritically, may often carry with them advantages.

However, those advantages aren't what make them the right things to do. Often, those advantages aren't present. Even in those cases, they're still binding.

They're just the right things to do, period.

Not because anyone thinks they're right. (Many people spend much of their lives trying to finesse them away.) Not because you get a good feeling from doing them. Not because God says they're right, and not because you just decided they're right. Not because you get benefits from them, or suffer no losses, because sometimes that's the case, but often it isn't.

I appreciate my way of expressing myself might not be how anyone else prefers to think about these issues. The point is, in Satanism, there's such a thing as "responsibility", and if you have a responsibility, you have to carry it regardless of whether there's something in it for you; because if you don't, you are not one of "the responsible", not deserving of any responsibility.

I think of it in terms of autonomy. It would be easy to just turn off my brain and follow a religion. No more tough problems to solve, no more tough decisions to make. It's easy to coast by, not standing for anything, not standing up for myself or being anything in particular. I could get away with it.

Taking responsibility for yourself means you suffer, you bear burdens others shrink away from. You stick yourself out and you take your licks. Sometimes you get something out of it, but often you're just the snaggly nail that gets hammered.

Some people would sooner die than be a hypocrite, or bow down to anyone else. That's what makes a person worth a damn.

Not because anyone thinks they're right. (Many people spend much of their lives trying to finesse them away.) Not because you get a good feeling from doing them. Not because God says they're right, and not because you just decided they're right. Not because you get benefits from them, or suffer no losses, because sometimes that's the case, but often it isn't.

Yes! Exactly. People who need a "God" to tell them right from wrong are not moral, they are just assholes.

>> its simple statistics that six is better than the one (In that you have 6 chances for excellence instead of 1).<<

Actually, studies have shown that in any walk of life only 5% of people excel and pioneer in their chosen fields. The rest are, at best, only good. But more likely to be simply average. Average being an acceptable term. The correct term is mediocre.

So your assertion is flawed. It's more likely that you have six chances of buffonery against one chance of excellence.

"Beware the average man. Everything he does will be average." - Charles Bukowski.

_________________________
"Unsparing, brave and laced with pathos and truth. u.v.ray is one of the more vivid voices shouting from the sidelines today."